San Diego Parents Challenge
Busing of Their Children,
in Carlin v. Board of Education,
as Real Parties In Interest,
Entitled to Intervene

November 6, 1979 adopted an “anti-busing” amendment (Proposition 1) to the California Constitution limiting busing to that permitted under federal decisional law. But this amendment too faced appeal by the Crawford Plaintiff-Class whose ACLU-affiliated counsel were also co-counsel for the Carlin Plaintiffs.

Following the adoption of Proposition 1, the reformed Los Angeles Board moved to discontinue busing in that city, but the trial judge denied it on the grounds of an earlier judicial finding of de jure segregation by that district. A precursor of the strong effort which would be made to judicially overturn Proposition 1, approved by about 66% of the Californian electorate, came in a San Bernardino Superior Court desegregation action in which there had not been a finding of de jure segregation.

On January 3, 1980, the San Bernardino trial judge permitted the ACLU-affiliated attorneys to appear and argue orally “in support of the unconstitutionality” of Proposition 1 in behalf of the Crawford plaintiffs, as Amici Curiae. Following that, Enstrom submitted, but was denied permission to appear and argue, amici briefs, one by the Groundswell group alone first and then one joined by a statewide group, Californians Against Forced Busing. (Details in Busing — Opposed, Chapter 2).

This exclusionary ruling indicates how hard it has been for persons who would be adversely affected by a judicial decision of a legislative nature to be heard in the proceedings leading to that decision. Groundswell applicants felt their arguments were more to the point than those by the Crawford counsel who, as stated, were also co-counsel for the plaintiffs in the Carlin case (id., Chapter 2). And later they were vindicated by the strong language by the Supreme Court in ultimately rejecting Crawford Class arguments in an effort to overturn Proposition 1 on appeal from Crawford v. Board of Education, 113 Cal.App. 633 (1981) (Crawford II). See Crawford v. Board of Education, 458 U.S. 527, 535-545 (June 29, 1982) (Crawford III), also id.,ch.2.

On May 19, 1980, the Crawford trial judge formally denied the efforts of the Los Angeles Board to stop the busing in Los Angeles, on the ground it was justified by a 1970 finding of de jure segregation. Crawford v. Board of Education, Superior Court No. C-822,854, p.3. Ultimately, on September 12, 1980, before Chief Justice (then-Justice) William Rehnquist, the L.A. Board failed to gain a stay of a California Supreme Court order which left standing the trial court order “requiring mandatory reassignment
 

Carlin  

Carlin v. Board of Education, San Diego Unified School District,
San Diego Superior Court No. 303800 (1967-1998)
San Diego, California
 

Crawford I 

Crawford v. Board of Education, 17 Cal.3d 280 (1976)
[related to Bustop — Board of Ed., etc.]
Los Angeles, California
 

Crawford II 

Crawford v. Board of Education, 113 Cal.App.3d 633 (1980)
Los Angeles, California
 

Crawford III 

Crawford v. Los Angeles Board of Education, 458 U.S. 527 (1982)
Los Angeles, California
 

— Handbook: Challenge One, pages 23 - 31 —